[Rictor]

Hmm, it seems they've gone and done a Napster. Maybe they reached some sort of deal with the TV networks to allow access for a price?

[IceFire]

I have a moral/ethical/legal/commonsense question.  Seeing as some shows, such as Stargate SG-1 and Stargate Atlantis aren't always shown up here...sometimes until a year or several years later.  So...if I downloaded a stream of a TV show...that isn't going to be shown or hasn't been shown or will not be shown for a considerable time...are the companies actually loosing any money because of that?   They aren't getting my money either way...so the net gain and the net loss is 0.  I can't support or not support the product...its an odd issue.  But I think this debate is pretty much limited to the U.S. and maybe Britian but I'm not so sure about that either....the public service broadcaster turns that whole thing on its head anyways.

And here we're still arguing over Canadian content percentages

[Sandwich]

Well, Ice, let's turn that argument on its ear; I don't even have a TV, so I never watch TV. Therefore, my downloading of Star Trek, BSG, Lost, 24, etc, is not helping me avoid the commercials, since I wouldn't see those shows at all if I didn't download them.

However, I could spend waste the money to buy a TV set (and pay the yearly TV tax they have here - not bloody likely!), but that's not something that should be taken into their calculations.

Additionally, my adoration of such shows as the remade Battlestar Galactica - which I can only see by downloading - is fairly likely to bring me to actually purchase the DVDs when they come out.

Ergo, in my case, my downloading TV shows is actually profitable for the... uhm... well, for whoever gets the money from DVD sales (networks? Producers? Intellectual Property owners?).

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by IceFire
I have a moral/ethical/legal/commonsense question.  Seeing as some shows, such as Stargate SG-1 and Stargate Atlantis aren't always shown up here...sometimes until a year or several years later.  So...if I downloaded a stream of a TV show...that isn't going to be shown or hasn't been shown or will not be shown for a considerable time...are the companies actually loosing any money because of that?   They aren't getting my money either way...so the net gain and the net loss is 0.  I can't support or not support the product...its an odd issue.  But I think this debate is pretty much limited to the U.S. and maybe Britian but I'm not so sure about that either....the public service broadcaster turns that whole thing on its head anyways.

And here we're still arguing over Canadian content percentages

Also, another arguement; I'm in the uk and pay a standard TV license fee for the right to watch TV (said fee subsidises the BBC channels).  If I was to download Dr Who, what would be wrong with that given that I already pay a fee for watching it, and that the only logical difference is the timing of when I watch it.

Or what if i record a TV show onto my hard drive; is that protected in the same way as if I record on VCR?  On the issue of sharing - is it illegal to allow someone to borrow a video and copy it?

(almost) Finally, would this be a problem if advertisers could add unskippable adverts - ala every show on the telly - to the files as ad breaks?  And on the same note, if I were to skip these adverts, would that be illegal, given that AFAIK it's not illegal to either a) flick to another channel when the ad break is on a normal TV stream or b)fast forward past them on a video?

[Janos]

Originally posted by Rictor
Well in this case, it is an actual product, not a vague idea. But my rationale is that it's OK to steal from the extremely rich.

Wait, why?

[Janos]

Originally posted by Kamikaze


Property? Only physical things can be called property.

Jack woke up one morning and decided that he would now make his first studio record. Jack the proceeded to the store and bought necessary equipment. He had to sell his kidney for that, but Jack was a true artist. He then used this to make a record. He had invested several thousand pounds on creating the music. Jack also has to live and so on.
Then some ****ass comes out of nowhere and claims that this music is worthless because it has no physical form.

[Rictor]

Originally posted by Janos


Wait, why?

a) that is months old and b) cause I said so.

In theory, private property is either sacred or nonexistant. A beggar and a billionare are theoretically equal in their right to own property. But in reality, the disparity allows for moral wiggle-room. If I steal something, and as a result of that the person who put his blood and sweat into creating that product or service doesn't get dinner, I'm a prick. But if I steal something, and as a result of that a worthless middleman is unable to buy another Ferrarri, I'm still technically wrong, but not wrong wrong.

In some cases, P2P filesharing results in the former, which I personally try to minimize, and sometimes it results in the latter, in which case I don't really care.

[Admiral LSD]

You probably wouldn't pay for anything in either case if there were a quick and easy way to get it for free thus your opinion is irrelevent.

[Janos]

Originally posted by Rictor


a) that is months old and b) cause I said so.

In theory, private property is either sacred or nonexistant. A beggar and a billionare are theoretically equal in their right to own property. But in reality, the disparity allows for moral wiggle-room. If I steal something, and as a result of that the person who put his blood and sweat into creating that product or service doesn't get dinner, I'm a prick. But if I steal something, and as a result of that a worthless middleman is unable to buy another Ferrarri, I'm still technically wrong, but not wrong wrong.

In some cases, P2P filesharing results in the former, which I personally try to minimize, and sometimes it results in the latter, in which case I don't really care.

Can I steal your camera, because you don't really need it and I need one.

[Rictor]

If I'm a billionare, sure. Like I said, it's a moral grey area.

[Janos]

Originally posted by Rictor
If I'm a billionare, sure. Like I said, it's a moral grey area.

But if you bought it, wouldn't you want to have complete (well, almost) control over it, since you have earned it with your hard work?

Oh god, I sound like a libertarian soon.

[aldo_14]

Of course, the theft analogy only works for P2P downloading if you assume the person downloading would otherwise have bought it.

[EtherShock]

Two words: civil disobedience.

If we all shamelessly downloaded and blatantly called attention to ourselves without fear, the entertainment industry would have two choices: either give in or start a full scale legal war with the odds greatly against them. They can't take everyone to court. You can't get blood from a stone. The only problem is, a few will have to take the fall at first, and I don't see anyone willing to sacrifice what they have for the cause. Also, the industry probably sees it along the lines of negotiating with terrorists. As long as we cower in fear, the industry will rule with an iron fist. Right now, no one can claim the upper hand in this war of attrition, but that could quickly change, in favor of either side.

[Janos]

Originally posted by aldo_14
Of course, the theft analogy only works for P2P downloading if you assume the person downloading would otherwise have bought it.

The P2P networks is a double-edged sword.
Some people use it to find new music, and then buy what they are interested in.
Some people just grab all of their music from the INTERWEBS, because they don't want to pay for it.

Some, maybe a good deal even, is balancing between the two. Personally I use networks to find new music (example: I had never even heard of a group called "Architecture in Helsinki" before the glory times of BitTorrent. I just ordered their latest release.) Also, I often use downloaded music as some kind of guide; if the music sounds interesting I buy a record, if it doesn't kick in, I just leave it. Quite a few music lovers I know use this way. I spend a ****load of cash per month for new records, so maybe my comments are a bit biased though.

Seriously though, just for the sake of both music makers and those of use who like music I hope the music industry can find some good way to sell both individual songs and full albums on some medium which cuts on the prizes. Come on, 20e for a new album? ****. That. Noise. [iTunes lol]

Also, what the ****:
"Oh we're losing profits, even though we're actually hitting all-time high as we speak, but we could do BETTER if the governmental agencies become the tool for our own market interests! Oh yeah free market and all that jazz, but hell it's a one way ticket I mean companies really should bug legislation and juridicary with complaints of losing market grounds to new and superior media. What? Our marketing is obsolete and we try to sell stupid ****? For high price? Of course, and you should protect us and trump superior systems because you're the government! We live in Bizarrolandia!"

[Janos]

Originally posted by EtherShock
Two words: civil disobedience.

If we all shamelessly downloaded and blatantly called attention to ourselves without fear, the entertainment industry would have two choices: either give in or start a full scale legal war with the odds greatly against them. They can't take everyone to court. You can't get blood from a stone. The only problem is, a few will have to take the fall at first, and I don't see anyone willing to sacrifice what they have for the cause. Also, the industry probably sees it along the lines of negotiating with terrorists. As long as we cower in fear, the industry will rule with an iron fist. Right now, no one can claim the upper hand in this war of attrition, but that could quickly change, in favor of either side.

Well, the populace forms 100% of their market audience, so we might have something to say. You can only alienate your target segment so far.

[Martinus]

[color=66ff00]I have only bought two 'new' things in the last year that I didn't verify the quality of beforehand by downloading or borrowing a copy. This includes Spaced, Firefly, the BSG pilot, the new U2 album

When I get some cash together I'll be buying the new Dr. Who series, BSG, Cowboy Bebop, Clone wars and a few CD's that did not consist of two good tunes and a bunch of filler.

It's no different from borrowing from a library or video store except it's much more accessable for me. I used to pirate Metallica albums and a few other things on principle but I think they have taken the hint that they can never control how their music/media is copied.

In a relatively short while a new type of p2p program will come out that makes it immensly hard to identify sharers. This is not idle speculation; this is how things are going to be.
[/color]

[EtherShock]

Originally posted by Janos


Well, the populace forms 100% of their market audience, so we might have something to say. You can only alienate your target segment so far.

That's what I was getting at.

[Kosh]

The biggest problem with the industry is that they have encountered a new technology that they don't understand. They are afraid of it and so they are trying to destroy it.


Besides, all I need to do is go rent a newly released DVD from a video rental place for one or two dollars, go home, run a few programs on it to decrypt and encode it, and voila I have my pirated movie.